<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Population: Off the radar, not off the map]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Steven Earl Salmony http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-population-radar-map/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:30:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-population-radar-map/1 How are billions of people to sensibly organize to respond ably to the destruction of the Earth that is now being perpetrated by those few million people who possess a lion’s share of the world’s wealth and the power it purchases? 

When are the morally bankrupt, super-rich Masters of the Universe among us to be held to account for having self-righteously institutionalized the ‘goodness’ of pathological arrogance, conspicuous consumption and excessive hoarding for the benefit of none others than themselves and their minions?

Perhaps it is time for many of us, starting now, to look not only to deploy these words from Mohandas Gandhi, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”, but also to live out this great man’s example of principled, non-violent, civil disobedience.

Perhaps constructive personal action and necessary social change are in the offing.

]]> How are billions of people to sensibly organize to respond ably to the destruction of the Earth that is now being perpetrated by those few million people who possess a lion’s share of the world’s wealth and the power it purchases? 

When are the morally bankrupt, super-rich Masters of the Universe among us to be held to account for having self-righteously institutionalized the ‘goodness’ of pathological arrogance, conspicuous consumption and excessive hoarding for the benefit of none others than themselves and their minions?

Perhaps it is time for many of us, starting now, to look not only to deploy these words from Mohandas Gandhi, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”, but also to live out this great man’s example of principled, non-violent, civil disobedience.

Perhaps constructive personal action and necessary social change are in the offing.

]]> Comment #2 by sindark http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-population-radar-map/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:01:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-population-radar-map/2 There is a lot of talk about reproductive choice in the developing world, and it is extremely important. All human beings have the right to engage in sexual activity on the basis of their free choices and have children only when it is their will to do so. It is an important role of the state to ensure that those rights are not violated.

That being said, there seems to be a disjuncture between concern about rising populations in the developing world and environmental problems. All else being equal, more humans tends to mean more threats to the ecosystems that sustain us. Of course, not all else is equal. People in rich states consume dramatically more resources than those in poor ones. This is true in terms of energy resources (oil, coal, gas, uranium), food resources (especially meat), and climatic impact.

Certainly, we should work to give reproductive control to people (especially women) living in developing states. However, given the concerning destruction of the natural world, does it not make sense to reduce policies that encourage reproduction in rich states? I am not advocating mandatory limits on bearing children. I am simply suggesting that it may be prudent to reduce the degree to which taxpayers in general subsidize those who choose to breed. Even with ample fossil fuels, the world is groaning and straining because of the current human population – especially those who live especially unsustainable lives in rich states. When we reach the point where those fuels are depleted – or when we refrain from using them due to climate concerns – energy intensive lifestyles will become even more unsustainable.

Increasing the cost of children may be an important mechanism for improving the welfare of future generations. No child deserves to live in poverty, but parents who choose to reproduce deserve to bear the great majority of the costs of doing so.

More







]]> There is a lot of talk about reproductive choice in the developing world, and it is extremely important. All human beings have the right to engage in sexual activity on the basis of their free choices and have children only when it is their will to do so. It is an important role of the state to ensure that those rights are not violated.

That being said, there seems to be a disjuncture between concern about rising populations in the developing world and environmental problems. All else being equal, more humans tends to mean more threats to the ecosystems that sustain us. Of course, not all else is equal. People in rich states consume dramatically more resources than those in poor ones. This is true in terms of energy resources (oil, coal, gas, uranium), food resources (especially meat), and climatic impact.

Certainly, we should work to give reproductive control to people (especially women) living in developing states. However, given the concerning destruction of the natural world, does it not make sense to reduce policies that encourage reproduction in rich states? I am not advocating mandatory limits on bearing children. I am simply suggesting that it may be prudent to reduce the degree to which taxpayers in general subsidize those who choose to breed. Even with ample fossil fuels, the world is groaning and straining because of the current human population – especially those who live especially unsustainable lives in rich states. When we reach the point where those fuels are depleted – or when we refrain from using them due to climate concerns – energy intensive lifestyles will become even more unsustainable.

Increasing the cost of children may be an important mechanism for improving the welfare of future generations. No child deserves to live in poverty, but parents who choose to reproduce deserve to bear the great majority of the costs of doing so.

More







]]> Comment #3 by Dave from Canada http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-population-radar-map/ Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:07:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-population-radar-map/3 Yes population will play a role in the increasing human ecological footprint. Education and empowerment for women in developing countries, and the development of a strong old age pension - all these things reduce fertility rates, and we should pursue them for other (humanitarian) reasons.

But let's get a sense of scale by looking at some numbers. 

Suppose population grows from 6.7 billion to somewhere in the range of 8-10.5 billion.  That's an increase of 1.3 billion to 3.8 billion.  At the low end of the scale, that's 19% growth by 2050.  At the high end, 57% growth by 2050.

Compare this to economic growth: by 2050, some project global GDP will be higher by 260-300% .

We have a very big threat unless we can drive a very big policy wedge between economic growth and emissions growth.

Either that or abandon the growth imperative.  See Peter Victor's book on this point: pvictor.com.

 

 

 

 

]]> Yes population will play a role in the increasing human ecological footprint. Education and empowerment for women in developing countries, and the development of a strong old age pension - all these things reduce fertility rates, and we should pursue them for other (humanitarian) reasons.

But let's get a sense of scale by looking at some numbers. 

Suppose population grows from 6.7 billion to somewhere in the range of 8-10.5 billion.  That's an increase of 1.3 billion to 3.8 billion.  At the low end of the scale, that's 19% growth by 2050.  At the high end, 57% growth by 2050.

Compare this to economic growth: by 2050, some project global GDP will be higher by 260-300% .

We have a very big threat unless we can drive a very big policy wedge between economic growth and emissions growth.

Either that or abandon the growth imperative.  See Peter Victor's book on this point: pvictor.com.

 

 

 

 

]]>